SCS carpet problem

Made_in_London

Hi everyone,

Lurked a lot but this is my first post.

My partner and I recently brought a carpet from SCS in the local store. The deposit was paid by debit card and the balance (over £100) by my credit card.

The carpet arrived with the fitter and the carpet was laid. A few weeks later we noticed that the carpet seemed to be cut a little short at the areas where it fits into the door bars. We called SCS and they sent a fitter around who glued some of these and assured my partner that this was OK.

A few days later the gaps were still there and the carpet was starting to fray. We contacted SCS again and an area manager arrived at our door, unannounced, he examined the carpet and said that the fitter had cut the carpet short as it was felt backed and would not stretch as much as non felt backs. He said he was going away to "think about things" and would let us know the outcome within the week. That ended today.

Now the complex bit.

SCS supply the carpets and you pay them on order (including the credit card payment) .The fitting is paid in cash to the fitter on the day of fitting. The carpet would be covered under the CCA but the fitting appears to be a seperate agreement direct with the fitter (you don't seem get a choice of fitters).

This is explained on the invoice but I didn't expect a problem. I wondered if anyone had any advice or had a similar issue?

Cheers.

PS. it seems like if a SCS fitter messes up your carpet on fitting, you may have an issue. Be aware!!!

deanos

Your contract is with the fitter, you need to chase them unfortunately

Having been looking at carpets at the weekend seems the big chains all do this, went with the local independent shop in the end who use there own fitters

shaun_from_Africa

Even though the OP paid the fitter directly, wouldn't SCS have some liability as it was them who chose the fitter and arranged for the work to be carried out?

It could be looked a bit like hiring a taxi.
You phone up the taxi company who then picks which car and driver to send to pick you up and you pay the driver (who would keep some of the payment and either give a percentage or a fixed sum to the taxi firm).
You may have paid the driver but your initial point of contact was with the taxi firm and it was them who took the booking, hence your contract was with them.

SCS may well think they have some liability, otherwise why did they arrange for a fitter to attempt the first repair?

deanos

not sure,i think a call to consumer direct may be in order

C_Mababejive

I do also think that SCS has a shared liability. Have you an update on this? Many carpet sales places use the same practice including Carpetright etc. Having said that,used carpet right a few times and received excellent service. Last carpet bought was from a local Indie. We could easily identify the carpet brand,who made it and where and they had their own fitters,,job done well. I guess one of the things about big carpet sellers is..well..do you ever really know what your buying/who made it ? The same could be said for sofas sold by the big sofa houses. Who made it/where/how/whats the quality like?

arcon5

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Even though the OP paid the fitter directly, wouldn't SCS have some liability as it was them who chose the fitter and arranged for the work to be carried out?

It could be looked a bit like hiring a taxi.
You phone up the taxi company who then picks which car and driver to send to pick you up and you pay the driver (who would keep some of the payment and either give a percentage or a fixed sum to the taxi firm).
You may have paid the driver but your initial point of contact was with the taxi firm and it was them who took the booking, hence your contract was with them.

SCS may well think they have some liability, otherwise why did they arrange for a fitter to attempt the first repair?

Although the taxi company in this example could argue they are merely agents bringing driver/car and customer together. Especially where in many cases the driver himself owns the vehicle or the vehicle may be part of a fleet owned by an independent garage who simply pay the taxi company a weekly 'rent'.

I've worked for a cab firm who don't even own a single vehicle - but have 10 cars on their books. Broke down as about 30 to one garage then the rest people who own a small fleet of <5 and rest owner drivers.

Same could be argued with SCS. So op would be looking at potentially consequential loss claim. Who with though is not clear - if for example SCS provided the correct sized carpet as per the order and the fitter simply cut it to small then it could potentially all be on his head.

But this point could be one for debate.

EDIT TO ADD:
I suppose it could also be argued the fitter is a sub contractor of theirs and as far as op is concerned they are merely agents for SCS and their employment status is of no relevance and SCS is liable for performance of the whole contract.

Op -- is any kind of 'fitting' charge listed on the invoice?

spacey2012

The OP did not negotiate the contracting of the fitting, SCS did, the fitter was the agent of SCS.
End of story.
SCS must rectify the fault.

arcon5

spacey2012 wrote: »

The OP did not negotiate the contracting of the fitting, SCS did, the fitter was the agent of SCS.
[STRIKE]End of story.[/STRIKE]In my opinion
SCS must rectify the fault.

Corrected.

ScS_representative

Hello Made in London,

I work for the ScS Online Team and would like to help you with this.

Please could you send me your account number and post code and I will be able to look into this for you.

Many thanks,

Kate
The ScS Online Team

jhe

the original post is from august last year

bod1467

I was wondering if I was the only one who had spotted that.